[MD] Does the MOQ invalidate Subjectivity?

[Gene M]

You both seem to feel that objects are "subjects" in that they are aware of
> their identity and surroundings.  Such mythology is reminiscent of ancient
> Phoenician and native American cultures, and it would have no place in
> contemporary philosophy were it not for Mr. Pirsig's obsession with
> "overcoming duality".  I find it ironic that in the effort to put down the
> mythos of religion, the author of the MoQ has re-introduced an even more
> primitive belief system.


A lot of people have refuted new ideas because they're simply not "up to
snuff" if you will. Just because it might be an old idea, doesn't mean it
has to be a low Quality idea. Researchers are finally anazlyzing a lot of
old folk and chinese medicines which were disregard as antiquated, and just
silly beliefs. Bullshit, essentially. But now they're finding that a lot of
natural herbs used by these people for thousands of years actually have a
great deal to offer to medicine and science as a whole. Just because
something isn't contemporary doesn't remove value from it.

What I can't buy is the assertion "mind and matter are levels of value".
> Mind and matter are two distinctly separate and different phenomena.  They
> represent the dichotomy of existential experience.  It is a logical
> fallacy
> to posit them as two levels of value; first, because they are not value,
> and
> second, because they are not levels of the same thing.  One can say that a
> tree and a flower are levels of biological organization, or that fear and
> anxiety are levels of emotional feeling; but we can't say that fear is a
> level of a tree.  Unlike objects, awareness is not an "existent" -- it
> can't
> be quantified, localized, or objectively observed.  Awareness is not a
> level
> of material objects; it is the conscious perception of them.


Is it the theory's fault that you can't accept it, or yours? I think you
simply have a full cup, and you're very attached to the contents, so you
refuse to pour it out. No amount of arguing will cause you to change your
mind. I don't see why you can't say a flower "is a flower because it prefers
to be a flower". Sure it sounds funny, but does it make any less sense than
"It's a flower because I see it as a flower"?

> And yeah, I pretty much just mean The World.  Same one
> > you're talking about. We're seeing the same Rock. I think of it
> > this way: If all life on earth were completely wiped out, I'm
> > pretty sure the earth would continue to orbit the sun much
> > unchanged for our absence.
>
> Not if finite things are a construct of man's mind, as Pirsig suggests.
>
> If the sparrow had self-awareness it might well care that you are aware of
> it.  Likewise the fish.  Instead they survive and flourish by virtue of
> their natural instincts.  Man is a very different kind of creature.  He
> cares very much what others think of him and wants to be noticed.  (This
> is
> proved every ten minutes when some dude drives by our house with his
> woofer
> blasting.  "Look at me!" he's saying.)   If man depended solely on his
> natural instincts to survive, he would have died out long ago.


I think the problem is that I don't see a good reason for denying a sparrow
consciousness and self-awareness. What reason can you give me for denying
self-awareness to a bird? Dolphins certainly appear to be self-aware. They
have names for each other. A series of sounds that identifies a single
individual in the collective, assigned to them by that collective. Sure
sounds like some self-awareness there. If dolphins, then why not birds?
It seems like we're so sure that we're the only species with awareness that
we don't really question the belief. I don't see why humans need awareness.
Clearly we're an extraordinary species, compared to the rest of the animals
on the planet. I don't see a reason to put them down like that.
What reason can you give me?

What a depressing thought, and how blase for a philosopher!  Do you not feel
> you contribute anything to your world?  Even the aetheist Sartre, who said
> "It isn't necessary that man exist; the world would get along just as well
> without him", also believed that man becomes an "object for others" upon
> the
> completion of his life.


I'm enjoying my life for myself. If others can get something out of that,
good for them. I'm not here to change the world, I'm not here for others.
I'm here because I'm here, and I feel that I should enjoy myself while I am
here. It might be for long, and there's a lot to do.

> There's a Zen Koan I once read and it's influenced my thought
> > immensely. I'll paraphrase what I remember of it here.
> > Apologies to anyone if I mess it up.
>
> You recounted it very well.  Here's the original koan as it appears on
> line
> at AshidaKim.com:
>
> "Hogen, a Chinese Zen teacher, lived alone in a small temple in the
> country.
> One day four traveling monks appeared and asked if they might make a fire
> in
> his yard to warm themselves.
> While they were building the fire, Hogen heard them arguing about
> subjectivity and objectivity. He joined them and said: 'There is a big
> stone. Do you consider it to be inside or outside your mind?'   One of the
> monks replied: 'From the Buddhist viewpoint everything is an
> objectification
> of mind, so I would say that the stone is inside my mind.'
>
> That is funny, but not very enlightening.  I like this one better:
>
> "Yamaoka Tesshu, as a young student of Zen, visited one master after
> another. He called upon Dokuon of Shokoku.  Desiring to show his
> attainment,
> he said: 'The mind, Buddha, and sentient beings, after all, do not exist.
> The true nature of phenomena is emptiness. There is no realization, no
> delusion, no sage, no mediocrity. There is no giving and nothing to be
> received.'
> Dokuon, who was smoking quietly, said nothing. Suddenly he whacked Yamaoka
> with his bamboo pipe. This made the youth quite angry.
>
> "'If nothing exists,' inquired Dokuon, 'where did this anger come from?'"
>

If you don't see something as enlightening, I think it might be because
you're missing something. I don't mean that in a rude way, just a matter of
factly way. Clearly others think something is there. Although I guess you
think it's just in their minds.

I think a big part of Zen Koans is to try and remove logic and right
thinking. If you think you're right, you're probably only seeing half the
picture. The master clearly proves to the young monk that he's wrong, stuff
in our minds is real. I think mine show's that the monk is wrong, not
everyone is just in our minds. It's both, at once. Everything is real, and
everything is in our mind. It's all there, it's all true. I don't see a real
problem with that.

-Gene